Tag Archives: union

Pink Floyd’s son says "sorry" for swinging on Cenotaph flag

The son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour apologised

SEIU Activist: Local Networks ‘Willing Partners’ in Campaign Against Wis. GOP Gubernatorial Candidate

Are the three news networks actively working to defeat the Republican candidate for Governor in Wisconsin? According to the far-left Service Employees International Union, yes, they most certainly are. SEIU spokesman John-david Morgan – also, incidentally, a former journalist – told a staffer  ( audio embedded below the fold ) for GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker that local media affiliates for all three major networks were “willing partners” in the union’s efforts to defeat Walker. The staffer gave a fake name and recorded the conversation without Morgan’s knowledge. “They’ve really been willing partners in it,” Morgan told the staffer. “They come in with the TV cameras, and [channels] 58, 12 come, and 6 doesn’t always. But, yeah, they’ve been really helpful. They think it’s fun.” Channels 58 and 12 are Milwaukee’s CBS and ABC affiliates, respectively. “It’s not perfect,” Morgan added, but “they get our message across.” Indeed, Morgan apparently felt that some items from these outlets reinforced the SEIU’s anti-Walker campaign. Among the issues the union planned on hammering Walker for, according to Morgan, was a disaster at O’Donnell Park in Milwaukee, where a parking garage collapsed over the summer, killing a 15-year-old boy. Morgan apparently approved of the local CBS station’s coverage of the fallout over the accident. He posted a story from the outlet on his Facebook page, as seen in the screenshot below:   Morgan also mentioned channel 4, the local NBC station, for its coverage of inspections of state facilities, which the SEIU hopes to use as the basis of an attack campaign against Walker. According to a transcript of the exchange, Morgan described the union’s tactics – and the media’s role in it – thusly: Yeah, you know, like, when we did the people’s building inspection, we went around to a bunch of buildings where we know stuff is falling apart. Scott Walker has neglected these buildings, and he keeps putting repairs off because he, you know, won’t fix anything. So, you know, they poked fun at us a little bit for having like a phony report card. It’s like whatever, but then they said, “But the group does have a point – a piece fell off the courthouse in May.” And sure enough, a search through channel 4’s website reveals a story from August 19 on the SEIU’s fake “report card” on the state of public facilities. The piece regurgitates a number of claims from union, and one attack from a county supervisor who joined the SEIU in its sham “inspections.” “I think that people should beware of the dishonest budgeting of Scott Walker,” said Democratic county supervisor Chris Larson, whose party affiliation is not mentioned in the piece. I contacted Morgan via Facebook and asked him to elaborate on his “willing partners” comment. At first, he said that he was only expressing his appreciation for “all the hard work that broadcast journalists did covering our events.” When I asked about the disconnect between that claim and the numerous comments he made in his recorded coversation suggesting more than a simple third-party-observation role on the part of the news media, Morgan refused to comment any further. He instead referred me to the transcript of the exchange, in which he said “my meaning is best reflected.” None of the three networks’ local affiliates returned requests for comment by deadline. The Wisconsin Democratic Party, Walker’s oppoenent’s campaign, and SEIU Local 1 also did not respond to such requests. But the Wisconsin Republican Party – to whom the Walker campaign directed a press inquiry – was happy to offer its views on media coverage of the race in a phone conversation. I asked whether the party thinks the media is in fact aiding the SEIU campaign against Walker. Wisconsin GOP spokesman Andrew Welhouse told me: I think that the only voice that you really need to hear is the SEIU’s. I think that the fact that the said something so blatantly – I mean, it’s their words, not ours. They’re the ones that are saying “these guys are in the tank for us.” I can’t imagine that he would say something like that if he didn’t have anything to back it up – a feeling that they were all going with. Asked whether media bias has been a significant problem in the campaign, Welhouse stated: What people see on TV and what people read in the newspaper goes a long way in determining how they perceive their elected officials as representing them, and it goes a long way in how they perceive new people coming on the scene. People know there’s a difference between paid advertising and what they read in the news and what they see in the media, and if there’s an ongoing perception that the media is biased or stilted one way or the other, that’s a big problem. And for the other side to so blatantly say, “we’ve got these guys in our camp,” that’s not only a problem for one party saying one thing and the other party saying another thing and there being a campaign between two different sides, but that’s a real problem for people who see the news media as an unbiased source of information. Though none of the media outlets in question returned requests for comment, it seems safe to assume that they would deny any official collaboration with the SEIU. But the fact that the media in question were so eager to cover events in a manner friendly to a group as far to the left as the SEIU implies a convergence either of political ideology, if not political objectives. Even if the media are not actively working with Democratic shock troops, they apparently share a sense of what is news – in this case, events damaging to the Republican gubernatorial candidate. The bottom line is Morgan’s admission raises serious ethical concerns beyond political bias. The news media can have a dramatic impact on elections, since they proclaim themselves wholly objective and non-partisan. This revelation may belie that claim – at least in Milwaukee.

Continued here:
SEIU Activist: Local Networks ‘Willing Partners’ in Campaign Against Wis. GOP Gubernatorial Candidate

Crazy Larry Tongue-Lashes Trumka

Perhaps it was just a publicity stunt for his impending MSNBC show, but Lawrence O’Donnell went Crazy Larry on Morning Joe today. The lefty host of The Last Word unleashed on an unlikely target: AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka.   What ignited Larry’s tirade was Trumka’s professed concern for the contract-negotiations plight of professional football players. O’Donnell was outraged that the union honcho was spending his time on the millionaires of the NFL rather than workers such as miners who merit more concern.  Sample lines: “Exactly how many minutes of your day do you spend worrying about $15-million football players? Is this the biggest waste of your attention that could possibly come your way? Is it embarrassing for you to have to talk about these guys?” Sit back and enjoy Larry going off. Trying to comfort Trumka, Joe Scarborough assured him that he shouldn’t feel singled out: “[O’Donnell] does this to everybody. I introduced him to my mom on the streets of New York.  Fifteen minutes later she was breaking down in tears.” Aside: as a card-carrying member of Local 101 of the Pajamahadeen Bloggers Union, for whom every day is Dress Down Friday, I’m in no position to criticize another media man’s sartorial standards.  But unless Larry is working undercover for a special on street people, you have to wonder about his unkempt, unshaven look today.

See the article here:
Crazy Larry Tongue-Lashes Trumka

Former Majority Leader Dick Armey Credits CNBC’s Santelli for Sparking Tea Party

February 2009 was a pretty dark time for the conservative movement. The arguably most liberal president in the history of the United States has been sworn in to office just weeks early. The Congress had solid Democratic majorities in both chambers. And there were overtures that only way to save the nation from suffering the worst of a downtrodden economy was through an avalanche of costly legislation that would create huge budget deficits and ever-expanding bureaucracy. But in the midst of that dark spell, CNBC’s Rick Santelli lit the spark that ignited the conservative pushback. On CNBC’s Feb. 19, 2009 “Squawk Box,” Santelli called for a “tea party” in Lake Michigan to protest the idea the Obama administration was preparing to enact a massive housing bailout to reward people who took part in risky behavior by purchasing a home they couldn’t afford. According to former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now the chairman of FreedomWorks , often portrayed as a Tea Party villain by the American left , Santelli really is a father of the movement. Armey, along with Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks, credit Santelli in an Aug. 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed and more extensively in their book “Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.” And on CNBC’s Aug. 19 “Squawk Box,” Armey explained the importance of Santelli. “The Santelli rant, which we talk about with great affection in our book, immediately went to the Internet and the Internet is so important to this movement, in terms of the baffled liberals who can’t understand what’s going on without a George Soros,” Armey said. “It’s the Internet, because that went viral. And everybody said – and that’s where the term ‘tea party’ comes in.” Armey explained that his organization served as a mechanism for the activists to coordinate the Tea Party movement. “So what we found happening very soon is with people who had found us because they said, ‘I like that guy on TV. I want to have a tea party. How do you do it? Well, let’s go see who does it.’ That’s how they found FreedomWorks and they asked us, ‘Give us some, you know, advice how to do this, how to put it together,’ and so forth. And we developed this mentoring relationship.” Despite accusations of opportunism , Armey explained his organization predated the Santelli rant and the entire movement. “We’ve been doing this since 1984, and we are the best there is at,” he added. Later in the program, Santelli responded Armey’s appearance on “Squawk Box.” “[T]he rant was a year and a half ago,” Santelli said. “The Tea Party movement is really moving along. It’s pretty cool after a year and a half.”

Read this article:
Former Majority Leader Dick Armey Credits CNBC’s Santelli for Sparking Tea Party

Newsweek ‘Thought Experiment’: Why Not Cut Alaska Loose From the Union?

Back in September 2008, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews floated a specious allegation that then-Governor Sarah Palin had ties to an advocate of Alaskan secession named Joe Vogler. Although the charge was roundly discredited, it was one of the many early attempts to smear Palin as a wacky extremist. Two years later, it appears at least one writer for a liberal magazine thinks Alaskan secession would be a fun little topic to bat around the Web. ” Thought Experiment: Should Alaska Secede From the U.S.? ” asked the headline for Daniel Stone’s August 18 The Gaggle blog post at Newsweek.com: August is slow around Washington, so we figured it’d be high time to toss around the idea of kicking Alaska out of the union—or the state leaving on its own accord. The reason? Those darn Alaskans are too conservative, too critical of federal government intrusion, yet they are net recipients of federal aid from Washington spending: A New York Times report from today points to the reason why: Alaskan politicians love to slam Washington for its over-the-top taxes, spending, and regulation of the state’s hefty reserves of natural resources. But when it comes to Washington giving back, Alaska is happy to take more money per capita than any other state. As of May, the Last Frontier, as it’s called, accepted $3,145 of stimulus funding per resident—money, mind you, that one of its senators and its sole member of Congress voted against. That’s not to say all Alaska lawmakers turn up their noses at D.C., but with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country—7.9 percent, which is still high, but not as high as, say, Michigan at 13.1 percent—there’s an implicit question of how much Alaska needs Uncle Sam, and how much Uncle Sam needs Alaska. If the 49th state were to leave the union, the impact would be, at first, economically devastating, according to Gov. Sean Parnell. But over time, could Alaska, by taking control of its own regulation over oil and gas, open the state for new business, perhaps allowing it to boom in a way that, until now, Washington has apparently stifled? Let’s hear what you think. Open forum below.  This sudden academic interest in secession wouldn’t have anything to do with Palin Derangement Syndrome on the part of the media, would it?

Originally posted here:
Newsweek ‘Thought Experiment’: Why Not Cut Alaska Loose From the Union?

Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother Nor does a child have a need or a right to a father.

(CNSNews.com) – U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based that ruling in part on his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother. Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70722 added by: MotherForTruth

GOP Politician Confirms What Was Long Suspected: Republicans Intentionally Feed the Racism, Anger, and Paranoia of the Far Right | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/gop-rep-inglis-tells-cnn-about-crazy-… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7cQqLUsv3k&feature=player_embedded August 4, 2010 | It was the middle of a tough primary contest, and Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) had convened a small meeting with donors who had contributed thousands of dollars to his previous campaigns. But this year, as Inglis faced a challenge from tea party-backed Republican candidates claiming Inglis wasn't sufficiently conservative, these donors hadn't ponied up. Inglis' task: Get them back on the team. “They were upset with me,” Inglis recalls. “They are all Glenn Beck watchers.” About 90 minutes into the meeting, as he remembers it, “They say, 'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'” Inglis didn't know how to respond. As he tells this story, the veteran lawmaker is sitting in his congressional office, which he will have to vacate in a few months. On June 22, he was defeated in the primary runoff by Spartanburg County 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, who had assailed Inglis for supposedly straying from his conservative roots, pointing to his vote for the bank bailout and against George W. Bush's surge in Iraq. Inglis, who served six years in Congress during the 1990s as a conservative firebrand before being reelected to the House in 2004, had also ticked off right-wingers in the state's 4th Congressional District by urging tea-party activists to “turn Glenn Beck off” and by calling on Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) to apologize for shouting “You lie!” at Obama during the president's State of the Union address. For this, Inglis, who boasts (literally) a 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, received the wrath of the tea party, losing to Gowdy 71 to 29 percent. In the weeks since, Inglis has criticized Republican House leaders for acquiescing to a poisonous, tea party-driven “demagoguery” that he believes will undermine the GOP's long-term credibility. And he's freely recounting his frustrating interactions with tea party types, while noting that Republican leaders are pushing rhetoric tainted with racism, that conservative activists are dabbling in anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nonsense, and that Sarah Palin celebrates ignorance. The week after that meeting with his past funders — whom he failed to bring back into the fold — Inglis asked House Republican leader John Boehner what he would have told this group of Obama-bashers. Inglis recalls what happened: [Boehner] said, “I would have told them that it's not quite that bad. We disagree with him on the issues.” I said, “Hold on Boehner, that doesn't work. Let me tell you, I tried that and it did not work.” I said [to Boehner], “If you're going to lead these people and the fearful stampede to the cliff that they're heading to, you have to turn around and say over your shoulder, 'Hey, you don't know the half of it.'” added by: toyotabedzrock

Arkansas Has ‘Definitely Put Out Some Feelers’ About Joining Big 12

On Wednesday, a report emerged that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones would like to see Arkansas (and Notre Dame) join the Big 12 which would instantly make it one of the top conferences. According to Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com ( via Twitter ), that report has some legs. Sources tell OB Arkansas has definitely put out feelers about possibly joining the Big 12, but the B12 votes don’t appear to be there yet. Arkansas has a better chance of joining than Notre Dame but its unclear if Jones was implying the two are a package deal. Arkansas, since joining the SEC, has seen its national profile drop. If it joined the Big 12, it would get back part of its Texas recruiting base as well as some relevance. Jerry Jones is a powerful man and, most importantly, has lots of cash and influence to make something happen. This is a situation worth monitoring.

Link:
Arkansas Has ‘Definitely Put Out Some Feelers’ About Joining Big 12

Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’

You know why President Obama’s Gulf Coast oil spill address from the Oval Office failed so miserably on Tuesday? It went over too many heads. At least that’s what the folks at CNN.com believe. Maybe that’s why the so-called geniuses at MSNBC didn’t like it – it went over Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Howard Fineman’s heads! Even more absurd in this piece  by the CNN Wire Staff is that it completely ignored how Obama’s speech patterns when he addresses the nation are at a lower grade level than those of George W. Bush (h/t Lachlan Markay): Tuesday night’s speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture. Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence “added some difficulty for his target audience,” Payack said. At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said. Obama’s nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 “Yes, we can” victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said. Got that? The supposedly smartest president in history on Tuesday night was speaking at less than a 10th-grade level. But that was TOO complicated for the television audience to understand. This genius is FAR MORE effective when he speaks like a 7th-grader! Yet George W. Bush was an idiot, right? Apparently not according to an analysis published at Smart Politics on January 29, 2009, after Obama’s first State of the Union address: Text of Obama’s Address has a readability score for an average 8th grader – two grades lower than George W. Bush’s Addresses and the historical average for modern presidents.  Shhh. Wait. It gets MUCH better:  Unlike the criticisms hurled at his predecessor, however, few have ever charged that the President, a former senior lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, has written or spoken too simplistically or catered his words to the lowest common denominator. However, a Smart Politics analysis of nearly 70 oral State of the Union Addresses since the mid-1930s finds the text of Obama’s speech on Wednesday evening to have one of the lowest scores on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test ever recorded by a U.S. President. The Flesch-Kincaid test is designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level. Longer sentences and sentences utilizing words with more syllables produce higher scores. Shorter sentences and sentences incorporating more monosyllabic words yield lower scores. Smart Politics ran the Flesch-Kincaid test on each of the last 68 State of the Union Addresses that were delivered orally by presidents before a Joint Session of Congress since Franklin Roosevelt. Excluded from analysis were five written addresses (Truman in 1946 and 1953, Eisenhower in 1961, Nixon in 1973, and Carter in 1981) and two addresses that were delivered orally, but not by the President himself (Roosevelt in 1945, Eisenhower in 1956). Prior to FDR, most, but not all, such Addresses were delivered in writing. Obama’s Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of 8.8 for his first State of the Union Address was the fourth lowest score since FDR’s first Address in 1934. What this means is that Obama wrote and delivered a speech that incorporated shorter sentences, with those sentences containing shorter words, than nearly every such Presidential Address in the modern era.   Remember: he’s supposedly the smartest president in history! So now see how he compares to the so-called idiot he replaced:  As such, the speech by ‘the professor’ stands in contrast to his predecessor, ‘the cowboy,’ George W. Bush, who was frequently skewered by the left and late-night talk show hosts for his public speaking abilities, his intelligence, and his misuse of the English language. Bush averaged a Flesch-Kincaid score of 10.4 across his seven State of the Union Addresses – or nearly two full grades higher than Obama’s speech. Bush’s speeches also averaged 2.4 more words per sentence than Obama, at 19.0. In other words, the text of George W. Bush’s speeches are expected to be understandable (in written form) by an average sophomore in high school, whereas Obama’s speech should be understandable by a junior high school student. Interestingly, George W. Bush’s 10.4 Flesch-Kincaid score was also higher than several of his predecessors, including Ronald Reagan (10.3), Bill Clinton (9.5), and his father George H.W. Bush (8.6). Still, it is, at the very least, interesting that ‘the professor’ should write and deliver a speech that has a readability level two grades lower than those crafted and delivered by ‘the cowboy.’ Interesting indeed. Yet despite speaking to the nation at a higher grade level than Obama does — and did on Tuesday! — Dubya was certainly never “accused” of being too professorial. Facts really are a stupid thing as are the depths liberal media members will sink to explain why this president is failing so miserably.

Read more from the original source:
Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’

Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’

You know why President Obama’s Gulf Coast oil spill address from the Oval Office failed so miserably on Tuesday? It went over too many heads. At least that’s what the folks at CNN.com believe. Maybe that’s why the so-called geniuses at MSNBC didn’t like it – it went over Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Howard Fineman’s heads! Even more absurd in this piece  by the CNN Wire Staff is that it completely ignored how Obama’s speech patterns when he addresses the nation are at a lower grade level than those of George W. Bush (h/t Lachlan Markay): Tuesday night’s speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture. Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence “added some difficulty for his target audience,” Payack said. At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said. Obama’s nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 “Yes, we can” victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said. Got that? The supposedly smartest president in history on Tuesday night was speaking at less than a 10th-grade level. But that was TOO complicated for the television audience to understand. This genius is FAR MORE effective when he speaks like a 7th-grader! Yet George W. Bush was an idiot, right? Apparently not according to an analysis published at Smart Politics on January 29, 2009, after Obama’s first State of the Union address: Text of Obama’s Address has a readability score for an average 8th grader – two grades lower than George W. Bush’s Addresses and the historical average for modern presidents.  Shhh. Wait. It gets MUCH better:  Unlike the criticisms hurled at his predecessor, however, few have ever charged that the President, a former senior lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, has written or spoken too simplistically or catered his words to the lowest common denominator. However, a Smart Politics analysis of nearly 70 oral State of the Union Addresses since the mid-1930s finds the text of Obama’s speech on Wednesday evening to have one of the lowest scores on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test ever recorded by a U.S. President. The Flesch-Kincaid test is designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level. Longer sentences and sentences utilizing words with more syllables produce higher scores. Shorter sentences and sentences incorporating more monosyllabic words yield lower scores. Smart Politics ran the Flesch-Kincaid test on each of the last 68 State of the Union Addresses that were delivered orally by presidents before a Joint Session of Congress since Franklin Roosevelt. Excluded from analysis were five written addresses (Truman in 1946 and 1953, Eisenhower in 1961, Nixon in 1973, and Carter in 1981) and two addresses that were delivered orally, but not by the President himself (Roosevelt in 1945, Eisenhower in 1956). Prior to FDR, most, but not all, such Addresses were delivered in writing. Obama’s Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of 8.8 for his first State of the Union Address was the fourth lowest score since FDR’s first Address in 1934. What this means is that Obama wrote and delivered a speech that incorporated shorter sentences, with those sentences containing shorter words, than nearly every such Presidential Address in the modern era.   Remember: he’s supposedly the smartest president in history! So now see how he compares to the so-called idiot he replaced:  As such, the speech by ‘the professor’ stands in contrast to his predecessor, ‘the cowboy,’ George W. Bush, who was frequently skewered by the left and late-night talk show hosts for his public speaking abilities, his intelligence, and his misuse of the English language. Bush averaged a Flesch-Kincaid score of 10.4 across his seven State of the Union Addresses – or nearly two full grades higher than Obama’s speech. Bush’s speeches also averaged 2.4 more words per sentence than Obama, at 19.0. In other words, the text of George W. Bush’s speeches are expected to be understandable (in written form) by an average sophomore in high school, whereas Obama’s speech should be understandable by a junior high school student. Interestingly, George W. Bush’s 10.4 Flesch-Kincaid score was also higher than several of his predecessors, including Ronald Reagan (10.3), Bill Clinton (9.5), and his father George H.W. Bush (8.6). Still, it is, at the very least, interesting that ‘the professor’ should write and deliver a speech that has a readability level two grades lower than those crafted and delivered by ‘the cowboy.’ Interesting indeed. Yet despite speaking to the nation at a higher grade level than Obama does — and did on Tuesday! — Dubya was certainly never “accused” of being too professorial. Facts really are a stupid thing as are the depths liberal media members will sink to explain why this president is failing so miserably.

See the original post:
Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’